Yan Chen v. 1707869 Ontario Inc. o/a Centra Food Market, 2014 HRTO 568

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Yan Chen

Applicant

-and-

1707869 Ontario Inc. o/a Centra Food Market

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Jay Sengupta

Date: April 23, 2014

Citation: 2014 HRTO 568

Indexed as: Chen v. 1707869 Ontario Inc.

APPEARANCES

Yan Chen, Applicant

Bay Ryley, Counsel

1707869 Ontario Inc. o/a Centra Food Market, Respondent

Heng (Pandora) Du, Counsel

Introduction

1This is an Application filed under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination with respect to employment because of sex.

2This Interim Decision deals with the Form 10 filed by the applicant on March 18, 2014, in which the applicant sought to add 1707869 Ontario Inc. operating as Centra Food Market as a respondent in these proceedings.

3Although the applicant characterizes her request as one of addition of a respondent, in my view, for the reasons that follow, the request is more properly characterized as a request to amend the style of cause in order to reflect the change of name which the existing respondent business is now operating under.

4The applicant was employed by 1707869 Ontario Inc. operating as Oriental Food Mart (North York) during the material time. Following her termination from employment and the filing of this Application, the shares of the numbered company were purchased by the present owner, who changed the name under which the business operates to Centra Food Market.

5The new ownership of the numbered company takes the position it is not properly named as a respondent in this matter as it was not involved in the operation of the business at the time that the applicant alleges an infringement of her rights under the Code took place. However, given that the business changed hands by way of a sale of shares as opposed to a sale of assets, the numbered company continues to remain the respondent, despite its name and ownership changes.

6I note that amongst other argument raised by the new owners of the corporate respondent, they claim that the purchase and sale agreement by which they acquired the respondent corporation included a clause by which the vendors agreed to indemnify them as purchasers from liabilities arising from the activities of the corporation prior to closing. Even if that were the case, and it is unnecessary for me to make a finding in that regard, this clause does not affect the ongoing liability of the corporate respondent.

7The style of cause is amended to reflect the correct name of the respondent company.

8The Tribunal ruled in previous Interim Decisions that the respondent business was deemed to have accepted all of the allegations set out in the Application and to have waived all rights to notice or participation (2013 HRTO 457).

9However, given that the new ownership only became aware of this proceeding when it received a Notice of Confirmation of Hearing, the respondent will have 35 days from the date of this Interim Decision to file a Response. The applicant may file a Reply in accordance with the Rules.

10I am not seized.